Real
Co n v e r g e n c e
Is
T
By Mike Enyeart, E. Michael Staman, and Jose J. Valdes Jr.
he concept of convergence has evolved
significantly during recent years. Today,
convergence refers to the integration of
the communications and computing
resources and services that seamlessly
traverse multiple infrastructures and
deliver content to multiple platforms
or appliances. There are three levels to
convergence: infrastructure, appliances, and services. All
three work together, with the ultimate goal of allowing access
to—and the delivery of—any service to any appliance, to and
from anywhere and over any medium, be it wired IP (Internet Protocol), wireless IP, or mobile cellular devices.
Mike Enyeart is a Telecommunication Scientist at Indiana University. E. Michael
Staman holds the Peyton Anderson Chair in Information Technology at Macon State
College. Jose J. Valdes Jr. is Associate Director for Telecommunications at Colorado
State University.
46
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
Illustration by David lesh, © 2007
© 2 0 0 7 M i k e E n y e a r t , E . M i c h a e l S t a m a n , a n d J o s e J . Va l d e s J r.
M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7  E d u c a u s e r e v i e w
47
Chart 1
sonal and business applications than
technology convergence.”
Reasons for Pursuing Convergence
Not pursuing convergence
Long-distance savings
Reduced costs
Combined support staff
Enhanced applications
Combined network infrastructure
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent Responding
In the convergence model, voice becomes just another data service. Other
services—such as messaging, video, and
pictures—are equally important. In the
voice world, we are moving to a consolidated IP backbone. And 3G (thirdgeneration) cellular technology delivers
high bandwidths, capable of supporting
simultaneous voice, multimedia, and
data in meaningful ways. Mobility is a
key factor and must be considered in any
convergence strategy.
Convergence is real. Those in higher
education, and especially those in campus IT organizations, need to understand the trends in order to structure
their services as the future evolves.
Strategies for Convergent Services
To outline some of the current trends
in convergence, the EDUCAUSE Net
@EDU ICS Working Group 1 (http://
w w w. e d u c a u s e . e d u / I n t e g r a t e d
CommunicationsStrategies/930) recently
conducted a short survey of a targeted
group of higher education institutions.2
The responses to this survey helped inform the following discussion of several
basic parameters: why convergence is
being pursued in the first place; the extent
to which organizational structure has
evolved to accommodate converged infrastructure and services; the extent to which
colleges and universities have actually
deployed converged services; some inhibitors to convergence; examples of applications; the economics of convergence;
and new educational opportunities.
Reasons for Pursuing Convergence
Primary reasons for pursuing convergence are to achieve operational efficiencies and to provide additional or
48
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
enhanced services (see Chart 1). One institution reported: “We view converged
applications as next-generation services.
Our ‘customers’ are increasingly leaving
behind the campus Centrex offerings
in favor of innovative wireless and VoIP
services. Our university feels it is important to control the communications.” In
addition, an organization perspective
crept into the comments: “I am more
concerned about convergence of per-
Organizational and Financial Planning
Colleges and universities are struggling
with convergence financial models as
they begin restructuring their organizations, operations, and policies to
reflect convergent services (see Chart
2). They appear to be implementing
convergent services within their existing financial models. Only 10 percent
reported having an actual financial
model for convergent services in place;
a much higher percentage has indicated that they are pursuing convergent services.
One reason for the lack of a financial
model may be the still evolving impact
of convergence on organizational structure and operational costs. For example,
combining support staff and/or reducing
costs by eliminating redundant physical
infrastructure for voice, data, and video
The EDUCAUSE Net@EDU ICS Working Group
A
fter its formation in 1999, the EDUCAUSE Net@EDU Integrated
Communications Strategies (ICS) Working Group focused on Voice
over IP (VoIP) and the specific technical and operational issues
surrounding the implementation of telephone services on campus
data networks. The group’s intent was to investigate a number of assumptions
regarding the strategies, cost, timing, and motivation for moving to an integrated
voice and data infrastructure. An important early event was an EDUCAUSE/
NSF-sponsored VoIP Summit held at Snowmass, Colorado, in 2000. Although
VoIP remains a central focus of the ICS Working Group, at that meeting the
focus moved from voice integration to the more general question of converged
communications services.1 During the ensuing years, the ICS Working Group has
published several reports on the topic of how convergence is manifested within
higher education.2
Recently, the ICS Working Group sent a short survey to a targeted group
of higher education institutions that are working on convergent services. The
responses to this survey were used to help inform the discussion and analysis
provided in this article.
Notes
1. E. Michael Staman, “Voice over IP as a Model for Multi-Services Networking,” October 9, 2000,
<http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/NET0018.pdf>, is a full report of the VoIP Summit.
2. See, for example, E. Michael Staman, “The Evolution of Converged Communications Services in Higher
Education,” EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 37, no. 6 (November/December 2002): 62–63, <http://www.
educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0268.pdf>, and James A. Jokl and E. Michael Staman, “Mobility and
the Future of Integrated Communications Strategies,” session at the EDUCAUSE Annual Conference,
Anaheim, Calif., November 5, 2003, <http://www.educause.edu/LibraryDetailPage/666?ID=EDU0361>.
services may realize savings. Of the institutions responding to the survey, 45 percent indicated that they have restructured
either operations or their organization
(or both) in a manner designed to take advantage of convergence; thus, pricing for
VoIP (Voice over IP) may reflect a balance
of savings and expenses for convergent
services. Further investigation is warranted to determine how the convergence
model affects the financial model.
Chart 2
Organizational and Financial Planning
None
Financial model is in place
New policies are designed or in place
Developing a financial model
Organizational
Operations
Planning
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Percent Responding
60%
70%
Chart 3
Actual Deployment of Convergent Services
None
Removed legacy system
Formal, written plan
Implemented significant VoIP
Thinking about it
Informal, perhaps unwritten plan
Production video-streaming
Talked to vendors
Production videoconferencing
Implemented limited VoIP
Conducted technical trials
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percent Responding
40%
50%
60%
Chart 4
Inhibitors to Convergence
Waiting to learn from others
No acceptable plan
Lack convergence implementation skills
Must amortize legacy services
Lack of suitable products
Security
No good financial models
Standards, concerns
Existing services work fine
Inadequate applications to justify
Infrastructure needs (e.g., UPS, vLAN)
Cost
0%
10%
20%
30%
Percent Responding
50
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
40%
50%
60%
Actual Deployment of Convergent Services
At this stage, deployment is focused on
trials and early implementations of voice,
videoconferencing, and video-streaming
solutions (see Chart 3). VoIP is being deployed primarily in concert with existing
legacy systems. Some institutions have
deployed VoIP services with the objective
of replacing traditional voice services.
In addition, a number of the tasks are
likely occurring in parallel—for example,
talking to vendors, technical trials, and
planning.
Inhibitors to Convergence
Cost and infrastructure requirements
are the top inhibitors (see Chart 4). But
institutions are expending resources on
convergence when there is a justifiable
application. Evidently, VoIP and video
services are the most-justified convergent
applications. One respondent commented: “Our current infrastructure is
robust and capable of supporting known
and anticipated needs for voice, data, and
video services. The new voice system is a
hybrid capable of analog, digital, and IP.”
Another stated: “I view our next step in
convergence as the merger of personal
cell phones and campus communications
services.”
Interestingly, a lack of skills in the
convergent technologies is one of the
lowest-reported inhibitors to convergence
(17%). Institutions pursuing convergent
services have apparently structured accordingly. Thus, the combined skills sets
of IT and telecommunications staff may
be sufficient to support the current state
of convergent services on most campuses.
One could surmise, however, that the rate
of implementation of convergent services
at an institution is directly related to the
mitigation of the inhibitors reported and
space (see Chart 5). New VoIP systems,
not VoIP-enabled legacy PBX systems, are
the clear leader of convergence applications at this time.
Chart 5
Convergence Applications
Gaming
Cellular/landline infrastructure
IP mobile phones
Cable TV/video to residence halls
Unified messaging
Streaming video
Interactive video
Wi-Fi/cellular LAN
Converged PBX
VoIP
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Percent Responding
the skills of the staff needed to implement
the services.
Not surprisingly, responses to queries
about the nature of convergence inhibitors raised additional questions. For
example, because convergence encompasses multiple technologies, it would
be valuable to further explore whether
one technology or another is perceived as
52
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
particularly cost-prohibitive. Can we assume that the costs are warranted because
of the long-term savings, benefit, and/or
demands of the institution?
Convergence Applications
Consistent with other indicators in the
survey, voice and video applications
predominate in the current application
Financial Issues
Today, IP network access is either free
to end users or substantially subsidized
(often by telephone rates) at many colleges and universities. The resulting
situation is an economic distortion that
provides an incentive for end users to use
outside VoIP services, since they view this
as “free” telephone service.
Most institutions reported that they
have no idea how much outside VoIP
services are being used on their campus
nets. Campus customers are expressing
strong interest in “free” VoIP (e.g., Skype),
particularly for international calling.
Most colleges and universities see little
new in this issue, since their traditional
service has been decimated by cellular
telephones and e-mail. Several institutions reported that they have measured
an average of 1–6 Mbps (approximately
10–50 simultaneous voice conversations)
of VoIP traffic, mostly from the student
population.
This local (customer-centric) optimization can cause several problems from
the organizational viewpoint. Some
problems may involve economic issues,
such as the need to dramatically increase
expensive PBX trunking to the public
telephone network to complete calls
from non-university VoIP telephones/
softphones deployed on the campus.
Other problems from the organizational
viewpoint may involve strategic issues,
such as the potential disintegration of
a mission-central asset, or the possible
loss of policy controls in areas such as
safety and procurement.
In response, some colleges and universities plan to price IP service relative
to true cost. They are also examining
the bundling of IP voice, video, and
emerging services. Some institutions are
moving away from a cost-recovery model
and toward a utility model, using a fee to
provide baseline IP and telephone services and charging only for advanced or
custom services.
Only 15 percent of the survey respondents charge differently for VoIP than
At the moment, institutions appear to
have little interest in pursuing new markets off campus, such as offering telephone service or entertainment services
to off-campus students, an offering that
could be enabled by generic high-speed
or broadband network access. Institutions perceive new market opportunities
as being within the campus and limited
to the delivery of core services (education) in support of institutional missions
using emerging telecommunications
­technologies.
The EDUCAUSE Net@EDU ICS Working Group Steering Committee
Douglas Carlson, New York University
Tammy Closs, Duke University
Mike Enyeart, Indiana University
James A. Jokl, Co-Chair, University of Virginia
Mark Katsouros, University of Iowa
Holly King, Northwestern University
Christopher Peabody, City of Washington, D.C.
E. Michael Staman, Co-Chair, Macon State College
Steve H. Updegrove, Pennsylvania State University
Jose J. Valdes Jr., Colorado State University
Wendy Wigen, EDUCAUSE Staff Liaison
for legacy telephone services. This fact is
interesting because some VoIP systems
(e.g., Asterisk with eyeBeam softphones)
can be installed at significantly lower
cost. On the other hand, the cost of some
other commercial VoIP systems approximates the cost of legacy telephone service. Telecommunications departments
may be hesitant to offer lower-cost VoIP
service because of concerns that doing
so might cannibalize income margins,
especially if a legacy PBX is not fully
depreciated. But it could also be that the
VoIP cost model is complex or nebulous;
thus, implementing it with an existing
price model is simpler. Another possibility is that the prevailing cost model
is being sustained in order to avoid the
administrative and/or political “fallout”
of a new cost model for basic telephone
service.
VoIP turns out to be insignificant
with respect to long-distance revenue
issues because that revenue stream has
been obliterated by cellular telephones
and e-mail in the student long-distance
market segment. In the administrative
long-distance market segment, the profit
margin is negligible. Internationally,
there is little impact, in part due to the
fact that international rates (and profits)
have dropped significantly in the last
few years.
At the same time, there are new revenue opportunities. One approach is
to focus on reversing the loss of market
share by reforming the telephone revenue model based on implementing
a utility-pricing model versus a costrecovery one. In addition, there are
new market possibilities: competitively
priced VoIP and new services such
as IPTV (cable TV replacement) and
video-on-demand (both entertainment
and college/university collections); the
development of advanced services, such
as custom call-center applications; new
distribution systems, such as campus
cellular services or antennae; security
systems, such as photo applications;
enhanced directory services (supporting integrated multiple communication
mediums); and the deployment of integrated collaboration tools.
Chart 6
VoIP as a Long-Term Strategy for Voice Services
No
Yes, at least for off-campus leased spaces
Unsure at this point
Yes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Percent Responding
54
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
50%
60%
70%
80%
New Educational Opportunities
Convergence provides new opportunities
to deliver education by focusing on technologies such as podcasting, videoconferencing, online collaboration, multimedia
service delivery, video-on-demand, and
integration of Wi-Fi with cellular. New,
or enhanced, services include interactive
distance education, collaborative instruction, international interaction (particularly for foreign languages), streaming
foreign-language video, remote access to
college/university media collections, and
new educational content development.
VoIP and VoIP Strategies
At the moment, VoIP is the predominant
driver in the convergence arena. Although
VoIP has penetrated less than 5 percent of
the production/operations at institutions, VoIP is overwhelmingly viewed
as the long-term direction for providing
telephone service. Planning, direction,
organization, and implementation strategies are moving forward, with 80 percent
of institutions confirming a long-term
strategy for VoIP (see Chart 6). Organizations are now developing the prerequisite
infrastructure for VoIP deployment. IP
trunking and desktop integration of IP
voice, IP videoconferencing, integrated
directory, IPTV, Instant Messaging, presence, and collaboration tools are driving
IP convergence.
Production deployment of VoIP
services is beginning to occur. From the
survey, 8 percent of respondents reported
that at least some desktops (typically less
than 25%) now have VoIP as their telephone service. In addition, 25 percent of
institutions reported that they are now in
the process of deploying IP connections
Although VoIP has penetrated less than 5 percent
of the production/operations at institutions, VoIP is
overwhelmingly viewed as the long-term direction
for providing telephone service.
(trunking) to a VoIP PBX that supports
either POTS or vendor-proprietary­ digital
telephone instruments at the desktop.
And 33 percent have reported the use of
IP tie-line connectivity between remote
sites and/or the use of IP trunking with
commercial service providers. Finally,
VoIP has created significant changes in
voice-deployment strategies over the past
three years (see Chart 7).
VoIP Security
It is impossible to consider convergent
services today without discussing security. In the survey, security concerns
occurred in three broad categories: governmental, system, and personal.
Governmental security is manifested as
compliance with the Communications
Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA) of 1994. There has been extensive discussion about CALEA elsewhere.3
System security includes fraud protection;
the requirement for the protection of dialtone assets from network attacks using
VLAN, VPN, WEP, and/or firewalls; and
concern about some “vulnerable” VoIP
operating systems. Personal security involves
the use of encryption to provide authentification and protection from eavesdropping. It also encompasses life and safety
concerns related to Enhanced 911 (E911
automatically sends the caller’s location to
the 911 operator), particularly for mobile
devices, cellular, Wi-Fi and softphones.
A number of specific comments from
survey respondents reinforced these security concerns:
n
n
“Security, reliability, and stability are
all considered inhibitors to VoIP at
this point. Our IP network was not
engineered for converged services and
is not considered capable of providing
such services in highly reliable ways.”
“ While security challenges exist today,
the opportunity exists to make voice
communications more secure over IP
in the long term than they are today in
legacy telephony.”
Emergency Call Processing
Many colleges and universities are concerned about the effective delivery of
emergency services—specifically about
the legal liability and the moral/ethical
responsibility to effectively respond to
emergency situations on campus.
There are two distinct issues involved
here: the “911 issue” and the “E911 issue.”
The 911 issue concerns call completions
to the correct Public Service Answering
Point (PSAP), which is staffed by 911 operators. Correct call routing is especially
Chart 7
Progress on Deploying VoIP Services
None
Considering IP-enabled application call centers
Less emphasis on deploying VoIP as a generic service
Funding model has changed
Organizational model has changed
Looking at vulnerability of IP—power and endpoints
Now developing more security for the IP network
Infrastructure changes focused on IP net redundancy
0%
10%
20%
Percent Responding
56
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
30%
40%
50%
problematic for mobile phones and
­computer-based softphones. (Imagine
what could happen if a faculty member
made a 911 call from a campus softphone
while attending an out-of-state conference and the call was routed to the campus PSAP.) The E911 issue regards the
automatic delivery of the correct location
of the caller to the PSAP. Again, this is
problematic with today’s movable telephones. Both issues are being addressed
by elements of the higher education
community and by the telecommunications industry through an FCC mandate
for accurate location information for
mobile devices. But until the problems
are resolved, institutions are using policies such as static IP addresses and/or the
transfer of liability to end users by enforcing agreements similar to those used by
VoIP service providers. Other institutions
are educating users about the issues.
911 regulatory responsibilities are
largely vested in state governments,
which may account for the variety of survey responses on this issue. For example,
one respondent reported that the institution does not complete VoIP calls to 911.
Another candidly stated that the institution doesn’t “do such a hot job [handling
E911] with the TDM [legacy PBX] system.”
Yet another said that the institution is
sticking its “head in the sand.” Today, as
noted, this issue is largely addressed by
“locking down” VoIP telephones to a specific location.
Disaster Planning
Colleges and universities seem generally
enthusiastic about using IP for disaster
recovery as an alternative or a supplement to cellular telephones. Specific solutions included using the IP network as
an alternate route to the public switched
telephone network (PSTN), rapid service
(end-point) deployment, redundant
trunking (a mix of legacy TDM and VoIP
Unless other services are provisioned with VoIP
and/or unless VoIP proves to have obvious financial
or operational advantages, faculty and staff will
demonstrate little resistance to or interest in VoIP.
The reaction of faculty and staff to
VoIP is generally neutral, characterized
by respondent’s comments such as the
following:
“Very few VoIP users even know that it
is VoIP.”
n “They like it if they’re moving off campus and it enables them to retain their
university phone number. Otherwise
they’re indifferent.”
n “They like it but don’t want to pay
more for it. Why should I pay anything
for it when I can get Skype for free?”
n Most customers “just want their phone
to work.”
will somehow attempt to prevent the
proliferation of ad hoc VoIP use through
policy mandates, service bundling, or
financial controls. Survey respondents
commented:
n
The lack of an overt reaction to the
VoIP service by faculty and staff seems
appropriate when VoIP is used to deliver
“basic dial tone” and nothing else. The
major implications are that unless other
services are provisioned with VoIP and/or
unless VoIP proves to have obvious financial or operational advantages, faculty and
staff will demonstrate little resistance to
or interest in VoIP. The salient questions
become whether they are willing to pay
more for the additional functionality and
whether additional functionality can be
provided at the same price.
trunks), and geographic dispersion of call
processors (VoIP cluster servers).
Applications and Users’ Response to VoIP
Some institutions are looking for the “killer
app.” One reported that the integration of
voice mail with e-mail through Asterisk
(an open-source PBX) seems to be such an
application. Others highlighted presence
management and an integrated desktop
(supporting a full range of media types
under a single contact directory). One university reported: “It really breaks down to
age groups. [Those] under [age] 35 are all
over VoIP, IM, and other related services.”
58
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
Campus Policy Issues
Campus VoIP policies, at least those that
exist, focus on the indiscriminate relocation of VoIP instruments because of
safety concerns (e.g., 911 call processing).
Interestingly, institutions are evidently
deploying VoIP without producing
unique policies for the service. This observation seems to correlate with the fact
that institutions are adopting existing
legacy telephone pricing models to the
VoIP paradigm. In other words, extension
of the status quo is the norm.
But there is a question of whether
institutional central administrations
n
“I don’t know that we should prevent
it. Rather, perhaps our goal should be
to encourage it. We are considering a
stipend proposal for cell phones and
handheld devices. In the future it may
make sense to follow this line of thinking for phone services.”
n “The philosophy followed is to entice
use through added value compared to
that otherwise available. It is unlikely
that edicts against actions will be embraced unless there is strong financial
or pedagogical reason to do so.”
n “We’ll try to control, but it will only
make users resent us, especially if
they can get better service at home for
cheaper. Many of our customers run
their own VoIP at home! Providing
more value and a flexible business
model is preferable to attempted
­control.”
n “You can only beat them on service
and price. If you can’t, then why are
you in business?”
When survey respondents were asked
whether the proliferation of cellular telephones on campus might eliminate the
need for office desktop telephones within
the next five years, 79 percent said no.
Cellular telephones have the seemingly
insurmountable problem of small display
screens and limited bandwidth versus
desktop telephones or laptop computers.
Since desktop telephones appear to be a
constant for the foreseeable future, better
integration of cellular telephones with
landline and desktop systems is highly
desirable. (Perhaps this model is not
much different from the “future” model
envisioned in the Star Trek television and
Achieving the new economy of scale inherent in
VoIP locally may be possible only at the grassroots
level—using, for example, open-source software
and/or higher education federations.
movie series—personal, portable communication devices supplemented with
large communication devices.)
In response to the question of whether
institutions would directly provide any
voice service or long-distance service ten
years from now, 85 percent of respondents answered “yes”:
n
n
n
n
n
“Mandates for E-911 emergency service (to our own campus police station) will preserve our monopoly for
most of our desktop phones, although
the numbers could get more sparse.
We will certainly offer on-campus
call management; long distance may
become irrelevant.”
“Long-distance service as a separate
metered service will probably die, as
it will probably become viewed like
local service as distance becomes
less of a concept in the ‘modern’ networked world. It will simply become
part of the monthly flat fee.”
“For complex institutions, it seems
likely that there will be needs that can
only be met through internal development and application, necessitating
continued internal management of
the related services. There also will
continue to be value to aggregating
telephone services.”
“Voice is simply another network application. If we still provide network
services, voice will be running over
that network.”
“As an employer, we’re obligated to
provide our employees with the tools
they need to do their jobs, and I expect
a basic desktop appliance will typically be cheaper in TCO and perform
better than the wireless alternatives.”
Policy issues cut to the heart of future campus service. On the one hand,
some campus telecommunications
organizations seem demoralized by the
60
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
academic requirements, and the changing expectations of end users. For this
group, the focus is on application innovation—for example, bundling (multimedia
campus directory service, IPTV, collaboration tools, middleware, cellular/Wi-Fi
integration) and building on the concept
of a community of scholars that will forever be at the forefront of value-added IT
innovation. The future may be a mix of all
three perspectives.
Achieving the new economy of scale
inherent in VoIP locally may be possible only at the grassroots level—using,
for example, open-source software
and/or higher education federations.
The new economy of scale has moved
from a telephone switch providing a
few thousand lines within a radius of
a few miles to a cluster of processors
providing millions of lines without
geographic limitation.
revenue loss over the past ten years and
are resigned to further loss of market
share. Others insist that a reliable campus telephone service is essential to the
business functions of the institution and
is therefore a strategic asset that must be
protected by restructuring the financial
and/or policy mechanisms. A third set
envisions the future and sees innovation driven by competition, emerging
What about the Future?
The years 2009 and 2010 are apparently
going to be significant for VoIP. Of the
survey respondents, 42 percent predicted
that VoIP would provide at least 50 percent of the campus telephone services
during one of those two years; 10 percent
of respondents stated that the 50 percent
threshold would be reached after 2010; 38
percent gave no date. This is consistent
with industry expectations. It should
come as no surprise that although there
have been no public announcements,
PBX vendors are now attempting to develop time frames for ending product
support for non-IP-enabled (upgraded)
PBXs.
Colleges and universities have traditionally provisioned and managed
telecommunications services centrally,
essentially preventing commercial
telecommunications service providers
from provisioning ad hoc subscription
services. The proliferation of low-cost or
The challenges faced by campus telephone service
providers are not unlike the challenges faced by
commercial telephone service providers, who are
increasingly bundling services.
free VoIP services from service providers
may have a drastic effect on the traditional
­college/university service model. The
­survey results were split on this potentiality. About half of the respondents envisioned an increase in ad hoc subscription
to low-cost or free commercial VoIP
services:
n
“Cell phones have already eroded the
monopoly. Services like Skype more
typically draw away long-distance
revenue, but not necessarily desktop
instruments. The mandated need for
effective E911 emergency calling may
protect much of the monopoly.”
n “I have dropped my Centrex line and
62
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
use Vonage softphone service for personal and business calls.” (This is from
a campus telephone service provider!)
n “Anyone who thinks they can monopolize voice has their head in the sand.
Instead, we are focusing on building a
business and service model that makes
our services more attractive but can
work with third-party services so that
those don't become a threat.”
n “We already are seeing pressure in this
area. Individuals getting their own accounts. Departments deploying their
own VoIP infrastructures.”
And about half of the survey respondents
replied that there would be no impact on
the college/university telecommunications services:
n
“We’ve not seen any real use of nonuniversity systems due to lack of enterprise features such as enterprise voice
mail.”
n “The principles driving the migration
to ‘free’ services are contrary to the
need to apply true economies of scale
to the centrally managed services. Ad
hoc external subscriptions to ‘free’
services have the effect of increasing
the overall telecom costs.”
n“Students won’t use it. Faculty and
staff still have to have our phones
in order to be in our directory. The
Without a doubt, voice is now generally viewed
as simply another application that runs over a
multiservice network and eliminates the longdistance per-minute charge concept.
budget process for allocating funds to
telecommunications requires those
funds be spent on university-provided
or approved services.”
n“Faculty and staff want high-quality,
simple-to-use service.”
The challenges faced by campus
telephone service providers are not unlike the challenges faced by commercial
telephone service providers, who are
increasingly bundling legacy telephone
service with high-speed Internet access
as well as unlimited long-distance and
entertainment services. (It should be
noted that the policies of telecommunications providers may be affected by
competition and regulatory changes.)
Most colleges and universities have
implemented this model, albeit in reverse. Many bundle Internet access with
telephone service. In other words, if a
customer buys telephone service, part of
that fee pays for Internet access (which
may also be subsidized), but if a customer does not buy telephone service,
he/she can still have Internet access for
free. This economic model provides a
powerful incentive for customers to pursue alternative VoIP service.
In response, some institutions are
implementing a mandatory fee that
provides each end user with a bundle
or package of communication services.4
This strategy is based on the principle
that each person affiliated with the college or university inherently needs communication capabilities and that those
services should be optimized globally
for the institution. Bundled fees are typically assessed at high levels on the chart
of accounts (i.e., major administrative
units at the vice president or dean level)
to reduce processing costs.
An interesting parallel is the use of
free e-mail service versus institutionprovided e-mail service. Services such
64
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7
as Gmail often provide significantly
more storage than campus systems,
and even though most colleges and
universities allow students to point
their campus e-mail address at outside
e-mail accounts, this is seldom done in
practice. This begs the question: what
do students value in campus e-mail
accounts? The answers seem to be that
students value their campus identity
(individually and collectively); they
rely on campus directory services; and
they value reliability, confidentiality,
and security. Students may also prefer
a campus e-mail account because of
the frequent mandate that e-mail be
used to support the business functions
of the institution, with students held
responsible for processing official communications sent by e-mail.
Conclusion
All of these issues are overshadowed, to
some degree, by the relentless progress
of technology. We are evidently on track
for the consolidation of all forms of personal communication. Directories are
becoming unified; identity convergence
is reconciling dial plans; and e-mail addresses may soon become the equivalent
of telephone numbers, providing a single syntax for communicating with others. “Value-added services” are a natural
result of convergence.
Without a doubt, voice is now generally viewed as simply another application that runs over a multiservice network and eliminates the long-distance
per-minute charge concept. Furthermore, the widespread deployment of
alternative communication modes (e.g.,
cellular, IM) has lessened the need for a
perfectly reliable telephone system and
has demonstrated that users will trade
reliability for other perceived values
(e.g., mobility). Thus, the future seems
set to replace traditional telephone ser-
vice with ­ computer-based softphones
coupled with miniature wireless (e.g.,
Bluetooth) ear sets that are integrated
with wide-area wireless (cellular) service. If traditional telephone service
survives in higher education, it will be
largely limited to providing 911 and other
specialized services in high-traffic and
common areas, just as pay phones once
did. Clearly, some higher education leaders are busy building the prerequisite
­ rganization, infrastructure, and applio
cations to lead this evolution. e
Notes
1. Interested individuals can join the ICS Working
Group and participate in its activities. Correspondence may be directed to the authors or to any of
the members of the steering committee.
2. The survey was sent to 50 institutions; 42 responded. When we discuss survey results, readers
should consider the analysis as representative
of conversations that would occur at a national
meeting of individuals interested in integrated
communications strategies. Comments from the
survey are reflective of the status and progress
of those working on the problem and tend to be
weighted in favor of large, R-1 universities. The
survey sample set had the following characteristics
(figures are averages and have been rounded): total
number of students, 29,000; number of faculty
and staff, 9,000; number of legacy telephone sets,
15,500; number of legacy video outlets (coax),
3,400; number of wireless access points, 8,000;
number of data ports, 32,000.
3. For more information, see the EDUCAUSE Resource Page on CALEA: <http://www.educause.
edu/Browse/645?PARENT_ID=698>.
4. These packages may include a combination of
the following and perhaps additional services: a
desktop telephone, perhaps a wireless telephone
or radio with or without a desktop telephone,
voice mail, unlimited domestic long-distance
service, presence management, Internet access, an
e-mail account, IM services, multimedia directory
services, identity management, authentication
and authorization services, DNS, other middleware, volume-licensed software, collaboration
tools, access to free (and legal) music collections,
conference bridges, videoconferencing, broadcast
television, premium television (movie channels),
perhaps IPTV, consortium television (e.g., Open
Student Network Television), and video-on­demand (e.g., college/university collections).
66
Educause r e
v i e w  M a rc h / A p r i l 2 0 0 7